Definition of terrorism

[CuteNFuzzy]

U.S. Dept of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

A UN panel in 2004 defined it as actions "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Oxford English Dictionary: "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised."

American Heritage Dictionary: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."



Now someone please explain how what Israel is doing right now to Lebanon's civilian population is not terrorism.

I argue that it fits every definition cited above.

[fooj]

1. Kind of like what we've done in Iraq........

:grr:

[CuteNFuzzy]

5. agreed

But at least in the case of Iraq we have some politicians questioning and second guessing. Not so with Israel. With Israel there is always full unconditional support across the political spectrum

[cali]

20. Actually,

until the last year or so, we had very few politicians criticizing the war. Even most of those who voted against it came on board when the war started. In any case, although I completely disapprove of Israel's disproportionate reaction, the US was never attacked from a country it borders. The comparison is a specious one.

[CuteNFuzzy]

21. I think the point remains

The point being, that both U.S. and Israeli aggression can be fairly called terrorism.

I see what you mean though, and I don't think comparisons of various wars and flare-ups can ever be taken too far

[bunyip]

2. CuteNFuzzy, I'm afraid you left out the unstated caveat.

It's only terrorism if the victims are White.

And then only if the perpetrator is unprofitable.

[CuteNFuzzy]

7. the standard dictum holds true

It's terrorism when they do it. (They meaning our 'official' enemies)

It's counter-terrorism when we do it.

[cali]

19. This statement

does not reflect the reality of the ethnic diversity within the populations of both Lebanon and Israel. In other words, Israelis are no more uniformly white, than the Lebanese.

[OneBlueSky]

3. seems to me the US government qualifies under all definitions . . .

as does the government of Israel . . .

[neoblues]

18. I thought it was describing the Bush Administration

and his Republican Congress (and politically Republican leaning Supreme Court). Yet it seems you were the only one to have identified the same thing. Do others agree or are we alone in this observation?

[Selatius]

4. Terror is a by-product of war.

I'm not talking in a legal sense but in a general sense. If you want to condemn terrorism in the general sense, then perhaps you should also lay some of the blame at those in Hezbollah who also decided on the use of force.

[CuteNFuzzy]

9. I don't disagree with anything you've said

The issue for me is the unconditional, unquestioning support for what Israel is engaging in

[Selatius]

11. Bush will have to account for that

I have already condemned Israel going way overboard the same as I've condemned Hezbollah's attack on IDF troops.

If Israel had to use force, it should've limited targeting to Hezbollah positions, in my view. No, they bombed civilian structures all over Lebanon on top of Hezbollah positions instead. Major roads have been cut. Power stations have been bombed. Gas stations and fuel depots have been hit. The airport is cratered, and the seaports have been blockaded if not blown up by now. Hundreds of civilians are dead now, but that in no way justifies Hezbollah into firing into civilian centers like Haifa and towns on the frontier. A wrong does not correct another wrong.

[CuteNFuzzy]

13. Don't get me wrong

I'm in no way using this as any platform for ultimately trying to justify Hizballah attacks on Israeli civilians. No, instead like you I also believe it goes both ways. "A wrong does not correct another wrong" is perfectly stated

[The Magistrate]

6. Despite The Presence Of Definitions, Sir

The term is essentially a meaningless propaganda coinage, that simply means political violence of which the user of the term does not approve. Thus, the only "meaning", or information, it carries in its use, concerns the person who uses it, and not the thing that person purports to be describing: it identifies the user of the term as being on one side or another of a political dispute, and does nothing else to further understanding or discusssion.

The fact is that all violence is aimed at striking terror into any who have beheld it and survive.

[Wonk]

8. True enough. It is also an abstract noun that America has declared war on

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1646005

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is True, Sir, And Spectacularly Silly

At the very least they could have particularized it as "war in terrorists", but no....

[CuteNFuzzy]

12. Except,

If the U.S. wants to have any claim to be leaders in this valiant war against terrorism, what is it doing unconditionally supporting Israel's current aggression in Lebanon?

[The Magistrate]

14. You Miss The Point, Sir

"Terrorism" is used only by persons to connote political violence of which they do not approve, to indicate that they do not approve it. The present regime is embarked, shall we say, on a war against violence it does not approve of. If you think the term has any meaning of its own, related to the object it is applied to, you will never understand its usage and function in the language. It indicates only the viw of the person using it, not any characteristic of what it is applied to.

[CuteNFuzzy]

15. Have you overlooked my post #7 above?

[The Magistrate]

16. That Expresses A Similar Shade, Sir, True Enough

But it is too particularized to convey the concept adequately, unless your "we" is meant in a general sense. For the claims that Israel, for example, is committing terrorism on Lebanon is just as good an illustration as calling Hezbollah terrorists: either usage simply means "I do not approve of (fill in the blank to taste)", and so only conveys information about the speaker, by identifying who he or she does not side with....

[CuteNFuzzy]

17. Of course "we" is a generalized term

My intent is to challenge others who don't grasp the lesson (not that I can claim to be quite there myself).

It's elementary morality.